Dear Governor Scott,
Continuing the State and Local Income Tax Deduction is a bad idea. But if it continues, I have a solution for Florida residents.
As Congress debates the 2017 Federal Income Tax reform proposal, the discussion to eliminate state and local income taxes has become rather contentious. The state and local income tax deduction forces the citizens of low taxed states to bear a higher percentage of the Federal tax burden then they otherwise would. In essence, the low Tax state's are subsidizing the high tax state's spending.
The high tax states counter that they pay more in taxes then they get back. But these are unrelated arguments and should be handled as such; even though the argument is the same as a high income earner complaining that he pays more to the federal government then he gets back - well duh! Yes, as long as over half the federal budget is dedicated to income redistribution, the rich states will send money to the poor states. But that's got nothing to do with forcing low taxed states to subsidize the high taxed state's internal programs.
If the Deduction remains, I request the state of Florida, which has no income tax, make the following changes to Florida tax law.
1. Enact a Florida Income Tax equal to 100% of the Individual's Federal 1040 Adjusted Gross Income. Not the tax, the income. Enter that number on a blank piece of paper.
2. Enter that number on the Federal 1040 line for State Income Tax Deduction, thereby eliminating all federal income taxes for all Florida residents.
3. Enact the Florida Resident AGI Income Benefit equal to the 1040 state Deduction for each person who files. Enter that number on your piece of paper and subtract that amount from the state tax leaving a tax amount of zero.
4. Tell Florida state filers that if they owe no federal tax they can through away their three line Florida tax form.
5. Enact a law to repeal the Florida Income Tax once the State Tax Deduction is removed.
Florida residents would continue to have a zero state income tax liability. But since Congress would not include the Florida Resident AGI Benefit as Federal Income, all Florida residents would also have a zero federal tax liability. And would even be due a Federal Refund for any tax that was withheld by an employer.
Perhaps then the high tax states and their Congressional supporters would recognize how patently unfair and mathematically unsound it is to force the Low tax states to help pay for another state's programs that they have deemed were not appropriate for their own state.
Sincerely yours and partially with tongue in cheek,
James Schneider
Static Analysis of Tax Proposals are Worse than Useless - They're Harmful.
The following email was sent to the Tax Policy Center in response to their September 29, 2017 article entitled "A Preliminary Analysis of the Unified Framework".
Link here
In the United States, Tax Policy is, unfortunately, a much larger component of Economic Policy than it should be. The reason for this is because our Income Tax System has become mostly about Politics and as such serves to distort the natural and efficient forces of supply and demand.
You report that, discounting economic impact, a Tax cut will reduce tax revenues - really?
You report that in our highly PROGRESSIVE TAX RATE system, if you reduce Income tax rates across the board, the people who pay the most will get to keep the most - really?
A static analysis of any proposed tax cut will by definition reduce tax revenue and favor those who pay the most taxes. But as far as predicting it's actual economic impact, its totally useless. I have to conclude that an organization that chose the name "Tax Policy Center" knows this.
So what then could possibly be your reasons for publishing a PRELIMINARY STATIC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS on a tax proposal DESIGNED to STIMULATE the economy?
The only reason I can see is to demonize the plan by misleading the uninformed for purely political purposes. But why would you do that? Since if the plan achieves its objective, these are the people who will receive the most benefit.
Please tell me how I'm wrong.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely your,
James Schneider
Concerned Citizen Seeking Truth.
Link here
In the United States, Tax Policy is, unfortunately, a much larger component of Economic Policy than it should be. The reason for this is because our Income Tax System has become mostly about Politics and as such serves to distort the natural and efficient forces of supply and demand.
You report that, discounting economic impact, a Tax cut will reduce tax revenues - really?
You report that in our highly PROGRESSIVE TAX RATE system, if you reduce Income tax rates across the board, the people who pay the most will get to keep the most - really?
A static analysis of any proposed tax cut will by definition reduce tax revenue and favor those who pay the most taxes. But as far as predicting it's actual economic impact, its totally useless. I have to conclude that an organization that chose the name "Tax Policy Center" knows this.
So what then could possibly be your reasons for publishing a PRELIMINARY STATIC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS on a tax proposal DESIGNED to STIMULATE the economy?
The only reason I can see is to demonize the plan by misleading the uninformed for purely political purposes. But why would you do that? Since if the plan achieves its objective, these are the people who will receive the most benefit.
Please tell me how I'm wrong.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely your,
James Schneider
Concerned Citizen Seeking Truth.
US, China, North Korea Policy Proposal
The New
US - China/North Korea Policy
The US questions several of China's Claims about their relationship with North Korea:
China claims they do not control North Korea’s actions:
But China’s claim cannot be true. If it were true, wouldn’t China fear a nuclear armed NK on its border? And why, over the last three decades, has China failed to do everything in its power to prevent NK from developing nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to detonate them anywhere within China?
The only logical explanation must be that China controls North Korea's leadership along with that nation’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal.
China claims that a failed North Korean state would lead to a mass exodus of NK refugees into China.
This claim also cannot be true. Why has it not already happened? Aren’t the NK people starving now? Haven’t they been starving for decades? If the 1 million active personnel in the NK army is sufficient to prevent the starving NK hoards from crossing over the Chinese border, isn’t the 2.3 million active Chinese army at least as capable?
The China-North Korean border is 880 miles long. Most of that border is naturally defended by the Yalu and Tumen Rivers and the Paektu Mountains. For comparison, the US-Mexico border is over twice as large at 1,989 miles. In 2003, the Chinese military took over border control from the police. Since then, China has been building walls and fences to better control the flow of refugees.
In truth, if North Korea were to fail;
- China's military is more than adequate to blockade their border with NK.
- China has the resources to meet the refugees with food, water, medicine and temporary shelter within NK before most even attempt to cross into China.
- China could request and would receive UN assistance to help rebuild NK and support the hungry and the homeless.
- Any responsible government has in depth contingency plans to deal with a failed state on their border. Everything in Communists China’s history indicates they too have such in depth plans to deal with a failed North Korea.
The Reality:
China doesn’t fear a failed North Korea. China permits the North Korean government to exist because the North Korean policies are in fact China’s policies.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.
Five nations are recognized by the NPT as the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS). They are Great Britain, Russia, The United States of America, France and China. These five nations are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Article I of the NPT:
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
The United States has determined that:
- In violation of the NPT, China has provided and continues to provide North Korea with the tools, materials, technology and support to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
- China controls the leadership of North Korea and their actions.
- China’s Policies direct NK to act against the interests of the US and her allies.
- China’s Policies direct NK to threaten the US and her allies with Nuclear tipped ICBMs.
As a result:
The US will hold China responsible for all North Korea actions.
In addition, and in accordance with Article VIII, Paragraph 1 of the NPT, the US proposes the following amendments to the Treaty.
Article XII PENALTY:
Whereas nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to any nation, and whereas they could cause the deaths of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people, and whereas they could wreak world wide havoc upon the planet and the planet’s natural resources for generations; Be it resolved that any nation deemed by a majority of the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) to be working toward the development and/or acquisition of nuclear weapons or to be in possession of nuclear weapons, whether a signatory to the NPT treaty or not is determined to be a “rogue” nation. Once so identified, the majority of the NWS MUST decide to either
- Dismantle the “rouge” nation’s nuclear weapons program through any means that one or more of the NWS deems appropriate or
- Replace the Regime of the rogue nation with an interim government decided by the majority of the NWS and overseen by the UN until the UN determines the people of the rogue nation have established a functioning government of their choosing that complies with this treaty.
Article XIII Nuclear First Strike:
In the event that a majority of the NWS agree to enforce the NPT Penalty Article by replacing the regime, then one or more of the NWS are authorized by the UN to conduct a limited nuclear first strike to eliminate the regime, and eliminate its nuclear weapon infrastructure, and eliminate its capacity to restart a nuclear weapons program, and to neutralize the capacity for the rogue nation’s military or other defenders of the rogue nation to retaliate.
Article XIV Aftermath of a UN Authorized Nuclear First Strike to Replace a Regime:
In the aftermath of a UN authorized nuclear first strike to replace a regime, and once the areas involved are deemed safe by the UN for UN personnel and others, the UN shall immediately offer assistance to all impacted nations to include Medical Services, Decontamination Services, Food, Water, Security,Temporary Shelter and shall work with all functioning neighboring governments to assist in rebuilding those areas impacted.
Conclusion:
The above actions may encourage China to return to the purpose and spirit of the NPT and help the world to either disarm or decapitate the North Korean Nuclear Monster they created.
Regardless of China’s actions, the US shall invoke Article X of the NPT and announce its withdrawal from the NPT three months from the date these proposed changes are submitted to the UN. If the UN approves the proposed amendments prior to the effective date of the US withdrawal from the NPT, the US shall cancel its Article X withdrawal proclamation.
Whether the US remains in or withdraws from the NPT, the US reserves its right now and at any time in the future to conduct a Nuclear first strike against any nuclear capable rouge nation that threatens the US or its allies with one or more nuclear weapons.
As of this writing there are two nations not exempted by the NPT that are known to have Nuclear Weapons programs. They are
- North Korea and
- Iran
However, at this time, Iran is in compliance with the separate and distinct Iran Nuclear Deal. At the conclusion, cancellation or other termination of that deal, Iran will fall under the NPT as amended and will become a rogue nation unless they disband their Nuclear Weapons program.
The authors welcome your thoughts and recommendations regarding this US Policy proposal.
Specter of 'earmarks' haunts GOP
Specter of 'earmarks' haunts GOP: House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., sidestepped a fight with outside conservative groups and fiscal hawks and avoided public backlash Wednesday when he resisted calls from some within his conference to bring back earmarks, those pet projects slipped into spending bills that can sweeten the pot for legislators and help get bills passed. But many Republicans admitted Wednesday was just about process and timing, and were confident that earmarks, which some call directed congressional spending, will come back in some form. It's about optics, Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., said before Ryan convinced sponsors of two amendments to partially roll back the 2011 earmark ban to pull their proposals.
The AUP responds.
1. Congress has no incentive to respect taxpayer dollars since they still only answer to the Special Interest Groups that fund their elections.
2. No government agency should have the authority to issue any regulation that serves as a law. Only Congress can enact laws. Agencies should only be permitted to recommend laws to Congress. But then Congress must approve the regulation and the President must sign before it becomes a law just like every other law.
3. Any project or funding for a project that can stand alone in a seperate bill must stand alone in a seperate bill.
4. Congress should only be able to spend when a majority of the states or a majority of the population would be impacted directly by the law (not the taxes needed to fund the law) or when 3/5 of both houses approve. Otherwise, the activity shall be left to the individual states to decide.
The AUP responds.
1. Congress has no incentive to respect taxpayer dollars since they still only answer to the Special Interest Groups that fund their elections.
2. No government agency should have the authority to issue any regulation that serves as a law. Only Congress can enact laws. Agencies should only be permitted to recommend laws to Congress. But then Congress must approve the regulation and the President must sign before it becomes a law just like every other law.
3. Any project or funding for a project that can stand alone in a seperate bill must stand alone in a seperate bill.
4. Congress should only be able to spend when a majority of the states or a majority of the population would be impacted directly by the law (not the taxes needed to fund the law) or when 3/5 of both houses approve. Otherwise, the activity shall be left to the individual states to decide.
Open Letter to John Kasich
Dear Governor Kasich,
I have long been a supporter of yours and still believe you would make a superb president. But now I ask for your help.
I share your concerns about Donald Trump and as yet, I have not committed to vote for Mr. Trump. But, at this time I am fairly confident that I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton.
I will not necessarily vote for the person I like the most, trust the most, respect the most or agree with the most. I will vote for the person who I believe will be the best for the long term health and values of my country.
That is why, if the vote were today, logic would force me to vote for Mr. Trump for the simple reason that not voting for him would help elect Mrs. Clinton and would help to hand the House and Senate over to the Democrats and the Supreme Court over to the Progressives. I believe that outcome would be far more harmful to the long term health of our country than my fear of what an unknown Donald Trump might try to do.
President Obama has been very successful in hobbling many of America’s greatest strengths because he is very smart, a gifted orator, knowledgeable about what he could and couldn't do as President, and was supported by an ideologically driven plan that was designed to do exactly what he did. Perhaps his greatest triumph from his perspective was to render Congress feckless as a check and balance against Executive overreach.
A President Trump will have no such gifts, plans or support. He will have to convince his own party in Congress not just to pass legislation but to make controversial Executive Orders stick.
In fact, a President Trump might be the best remedy to unify, strengthen and reaffirm the Constitutional role of Congress to restrain a rogue administration. Consider how different the Obama Presidency might have been if the Democrats in Congress had enforced their Constitutional role and not acted as a rubber stamp for anything Mr. Obama wanted to do.
At the time, I couldn't understand how my fellow Republicans could have nominated Mr. Trump when so many worthy alternatives were available. Now, as I consider my own arguments I'm struck by just how smart the voters may have been after all.
That is why I ask you to contact Mr. Trump personally with this letter in hand and commit your full support to get him elected and offer to serve, in a mutually agreeable capacity, in a Donald Trump administration.
I know that I and many other Americans would feel much better about our vote for Mr. Trump if we knew that you were a trusted insider within the Trump Administration who had once again taken the oath to protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I wish you good health and great success in whatever role you decide is best for our nation,
James Schneider
Concerned Citizen
I have long been a supporter of yours and still believe you would make a superb president. But now I ask for your help.
I share your concerns about Donald Trump and as yet, I have not committed to vote for Mr. Trump. But, at this time I am fairly confident that I will not be voting for Mrs. Clinton.
I will not necessarily vote for the person I like the most, trust the most, respect the most or agree with the most. I will vote for the person who I believe will be the best for the long term health and values of my country.
That is why, if the vote were today, logic would force me to vote for Mr. Trump for the simple reason that not voting for him would help elect Mrs. Clinton and would help to hand the House and Senate over to the Democrats and the Supreme Court over to the Progressives. I believe that outcome would be far more harmful to the long term health of our country than my fear of what an unknown Donald Trump might try to do.
President Obama has been very successful in hobbling many of America’s greatest strengths because he is very smart, a gifted orator, knowledgeable about what he could and couldn't do as President, and was supported by an ideologically driven plan that was designed to do exactly what he did. Perhaps his greatest triumph from his perspective was to render Congress feckless as a check and balance against Executive overreach.
A President Trump will have no such gifts, plans or support. He will have to convince his own party in Congress not just to pass legislation but to make controversial Executive Orders stick.
In fact, a President Trump might be the best remedy to unify, strengthen and reaffirm the Constitutional role of Congress to restrain a rogue administration. Consider how different the Obama Presidency might have been if the Democrats in Congress had enforced their Constitutional role and not acted as a rubber stamp for anything Mr. Obama wanted to do.
At the time, I couldn't understand how my fellow Republicans could have nominated Mr. Trump when so many worthy alternatives were available. Now, as I consider my own arguments I'm struck by just how smart the voters may have been after all.
That is why I ask you to contact Mr. Trump personally with this letter in hand and commit your full support to get him elected and offer to serve, in a mutually agreeable capacity, in a Donald Trump administration.
I know that I and many other Americans would feel much better about our vote for Mr. Trump if we knew that you were a trusted insider within the Trump Administration who had once again taken the oath to protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I wish you good health and great success in whatever role you decide is best for our nation,
James Schneider
Concerned Citizen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)